With his sweep of the Democratic primaries in the Potomac earlier this week, Barack Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nomination is now his to lose.
Besides his charisma, what has so attracted Democratic Party activists to Obama is his pledge to end the War in Iraq. A war he believes never should have been fought in the first place.
Well, hindsight is 20-20. But this then begs the question how Obama would end the war in Iraq?
Obama, who has been oft criticized for lacking specifics, did deliver a major speech on Iraq on September 12, 2007 while campaigning in Clinton, Iowa (I kid you not). That speech serves as the foundation of his policy in Iraq. (
Here &
Here)
Having read Obama’s policy concerning Iraq, I find myself troubled both by its premise and its prescription. It is titled, “
Turning the Page in Iraq.” It would be more aptly named, “Turning our Back on Iraq.”
Obama’s prescription of withdrawal is predicated on the premise that the surge is not working and that the sole purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq’s leaders to reconcile. This is simply wrong.
The surge is actually rooted in six fundamental elements as spelled out by the Bush Administration. First, let the Iraqis lead. Second, help the Iraqis protect the population. Third, isolate extremists. Fourth, create space for political progress. Fifth, diversify political and economic efforts. Finally, situate the strategy in a regional approach. (
Whitehouse)
Have all these elements been achieved in the space of one year? No. Have some of these elements been achieved and is Iraq a better place now for it? Yes.
Obama ignores the fact there was an Iraqi led initiative to secure Baghdad known as Operating Imposing Law. This operation led to a significant decline in violence by insurgents. Don’t get me wrong. Baghdad is still a dangerous place. But the streets are no longer deserted and Iraqis are again beginning to enjoy the café nightlife that was unthinkable a year ago.
The surge has helped to isolate extremists. There is no question the surge was a significant factor in the Mahdi Army declaring a six month ceasefire last August (although one wonders what happens once the ceasefire expires on February 29th.)
The surge has helped to create space for political progress. To be sure, watching the Iraqi Parliament work has been about as exasperating as eating Jello with chopsticks. But just this week, the Iraqi Parliament passed laws concerning a general amnesty for thousands of Iraqi prisoners and defining the powers of the provinces. Consequently, with respect to the latter piece of legislation, there will be provincial elections throughout Iraq on October 1, 2008 (save for the Kurdish region which has a well established government). Earlier this month, the Iraqi Parliament also passed a de-Baathification law which permits 38,000, mostly low-level, Baath Party members to work again for the Iraqi government.
Let’s be clear. The Iraqi Parliament has a long, long way to go. It still must, amongst other things, pass an oil revenue sharing law as well as a measure to disarm the various Shiite and Sunni militias still operating throughout Iraq. This will not be easy. But the Iraqis are trying to resolve matters in a civil and democratic manner. Yet this is not good enough for Obama who wants to throw the baby out with the Baath water so to speak.
If elected President, Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2009. Only a residual force would remain. Obama argues that withdrawal is the best means to ensure the Iraqi government acts. According to “Turning The Page in Iraq”, “Drawing down our troop presence is the best way to finally apply real pressure on the Iraqi government to make the political accommodations necessary to heal the nation’s sectarian rifts, and to take on more responsibility for providing security to their people.”
So who fills the void in Iraq once U.S. troops are withdrawn? The United Nations, Iran and Syria would.
Obama proposes the UN lead a Constitutional Convention. He dismisses the 2005 Iraqi Constitution as nothing more than “the product of a Kurdish-Shiite deal.” Well, this is largely because the Sunnis boycotted the process back then. Obama proposes the UN Constitutional Convention “would not adjourn until national reconciliation is reached and contentious questions such as federalism, oil revenue sharing, and de-Baathification are resolved.” Under those conditions, the UN could be in Iraq for, say, 100 years. One could also say it is reason enough not to give Obama four years in the White House.
But let’s get this straight. Obama has unlimited patience with the UN but less than a year into the surge his patience with U.S. troops is exhausted? Sure Obama states “our troops have performed brilliantly”. So what makes Obama think the UN will succeed where U.S. troops haven’t? Suppose UN facilities are targeted as the UN Headquarters were in Iraq back in August 2003 killing 22 people including Sergio Vieira de Mello, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special representative in Iraq. After a second bombing a month later, the UN withdrew from Iraq after the attack and has only maintained a small presence since. Would the UN end its Constitutional Convention if attacked again?
But let us assume for a moment UN facilities are not attacked and they remain in Iraq. If Obama believes the presence of U.S. troops is a disincentive for the Iraqi Parliament to resolve matters what makes Obama think a UN Constitutional Convention will hurry Iraqi lawmakers? The UN has had a peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since 1964. The Greek and Turkish Cypriots seem quite happy not to resolve their differences.
In addition to the UN Constitutional Convention, Obama also supports “a diplomatic surge.” This diplomatic surge would see Obama “press Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to stem the flow of foreign fighters, arms, and financial resources into Iraq.” Obama also pledges he will be “a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.” I am sure that Ahmadinejad and Asaad are thinking, “Obama’s going to stop us from meddling in Iraq. Oh yeah, you and what army? Oh, that’s right. There is no army because Obama withdrew it.” Obama might as well send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be his envoy for all the good it would do.
But like many liberal Democrats, Obama takes the “blame America” view of the world. “America’s standing has suffered,” said Obama, “Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don’t like.” Well, if the United States is so averse to talking to Iran why was it that Iran postponed meeting with the U.S. concerning Iraq as did it on February 14th without giving any explanation? Iran also backed out of talks with the United States in December 2007. Yet, in Obama’s eyes, it is America’s reputation that is in tatters.
How much faith does Obama place in Ahmadinejad who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the map? How much confidence does Obama have in Iran as it sent its Foreign Affairs Minister, Mohammed Mottaki, to attend the funeral of Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyah? This is the same Mughniyah who was one of the masterminds of the October 1983 bombings of the U.S. military barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. How much confidence does Obama have in Asaad not meddling in Iraqi affairs when Syria won’t stop meddling in the affairs of Lebanon?
There will come a day when U.S. troops will leave Iraq. But to do so under anything other than our own terms would render both the United States and Iraq weaker for it. Whatever reservations conservatives have about John McCain, it is impossible to imagine McCain willing to leave Iraq in the hands of the United Nations, Iran and Syria.
During a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, the night of his Potomac triumph, Obama declared, “John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning.” For that matter, John McCain won’t be able to say that Barack Obama wants to win the War in Iraq either.
Aaron Goldstein was a card carrying member of the socialist New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). Since 09/11, Aaron has reconsidered his ideological inclinations and has become a Republican. Aaron lives and works in Boston. 
